The University of Otago has responded to the Official Information Act. The first sentence of their request is as follows:
That is interesting. My request specifically asks for all records of SARS-COV-2 Isolation from an adulterated sample. They have confirmed they do not hold records of SARS-COV-2 isolation from an unadulterated sample. But they go on to say that, “SARS-COV-2 is not isolated in the way you describe”. Here is the first part of my request.
Notice that I have specifically defined isolation. Their next sentence is the following:
My OIA is specifically requesting the isolation of SARS-COV-2. They wrote they have no records that satisfy my request yet then they write SARS-COV-2 has been ‘detected and isolated’. This is an obvious contradiction. They do not define ‘detection and isolation’. But they attached a letter written by Miguel E. Quinones-Mateu.
Miguel opens his paper by writing ‘… the process that we …. have used to detect and isolate SARS-COV-2 from patient-derived specimens’.
The very first step in his process is the following:
This step already disqualifies his process as he uses UTM which contains bovine fetal serum, antibiotics, and antifungals (see).
But it gets worse. He then claims that he will use 140 microliters to isolate total RNA which he is mislabelling as isolate. “Isolate total RNA” is undefined in this sentense. 140 microliters of what? Total RNA we have to assume means any RNA that is in the patient sample plus the UTM mixture. Miguel has NOT described any process for isolating SARS-COV-2 virus. The last part of the sentence is Miguel adding the mixture onto Monkey Kidney Cells. If you are studying Human Pathogenic Virus, it's incorrect to attempt to grow on any culture medium that is NOT human.
PCR is a DNA amplification process and can only be used to identify DNA in a sample. It cannot be used to identify ANYTHING OTHER than DNA. Meaning, microorganisms cannot be identified nor detected using PCR! Just a note, RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase Polymerise Chain Reaction) is the process used to amplify RNA genetic material but in this article, I will use the term PCR to keep it simple.
Karry Mullis the inventor of PCR who won the noble prize on Chemistry in 1983 has said that quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. Meaning, PCR cannot be used for diagnosis or the detection of anything other than DNA.
He then goes on to describe that metagenomics sequencing somehow ‘identifies’ all microorganisms present. Metagenomics sequencing claims to identify billions of nucleic acid fragments (RNA and DNA). The process then claims that it uses a computer simulation to build a model of a full RNA or DNA sequence based on the fragments it detected. This process DOES NOT isolate anything. The results of this process depend on previously found RNA and DNA. But since no human pathogenic virus has EVER been isolated, its impossible for metagenomics sequencing to provide any analysis on the presence or lack their of any virus.
I will also remind the reader that the mixture fed into the metagenomics sequencing was contaminated with Monkey Kidney Cells, Fetal Bovine Serum, Antibiotics, and Antifungals. So any claims of alleged “whole genome sequences” cannot be ascribed to as Miguel Claims.
Then he writes that vero cells (Monkey Kidney Cells) were monitored. Vero cells are not HUMAN cells. So this process does not tell us anything about whatever is in the mixture at this point especially in how it relates to human cells.
He cannot claim that a virus is causing an infection because he has NEVER isolated the virus. As I have stated above, the UTM has fetal bovine serum, antibiotics, and antifungals. We also do not know what is in the sample. There could be all sorts of genetic material and cells from many different sources as its collected from the lungs. Whatever the human breaths in, could be collected in that sample. Meaning, if CPE is observed, he will not be able to determine the cause due to the adulterated mixture.
The next process is written to be confusing. He doesn’t clearly state what the controls were from the outset.
Is he writing that a control group was collected from a human patient that were NOT exposed to UTM? If so, his control group is completely different to his experimental group. As he added UTM to his experimental group. This invalidates the entire experiment. Its text book that the control group should be exactly the same as the experimental group except for whatever you are testing for.
He doesn’t explain why he is using Vero cells at ALL. He is trying to identify SARS-COV-2 in humans NOT monkeys.
We can stop there. His conclusions are based on a flawed process that I have demonstrated above. This is the sort of Bad Science that we see all over the world when it comes to virus isolation. This process clearly does not isolate any unique and novel virus.
The introduction to Miguel’s paper, he wrote the following:
The electron microscope was invented in 1931 by Ernst Ruska & Max Knoll. It wasn't until 1938/39 that electron microscopes started to be manufactured. The 2 cited papers one from 1925 and another from 1901 referring to the processes used to isolate virus. (I have not read these are they are locked behind pay-walls). However, during that time, they did not have access to Electron Microscopes, so how could the scientist actually isolate virus and know what they have isolated without being able to see them in enough detail and degree to verify uniqueness?
I will also note that PCR wasn’t invented until the 1980’s by Karry Mullis. Miguel uses PCR in his process which of course will be absent in those papers he cited. Miguel did not visualise SARS-COV-2 in an electron microscope. That is an important step for isolation that is missing from his procedure!